Though Hulbert concedes that markets tend to generate lackluster returns from May through October, he points out an academic study which suggests that consumer-staples and other defensive stocks tend to hold up fairly well during this period.

Interestingly, the piece by Schaeffer's Rocky White has its own refinement on the "Sell in May" theme. He writes that he broke down the May-through-October returns further into three-month intervals.

Forbes

He writes that over the last 40 years, the first half of that time frame — May through July — "has been a lot smoother sailing than the latter part of the time frame, August through October."

So maybe it's "Sell in August?"

However, he adds, over the past 10 years (nine returns), the "next three months have been very bearish. The May-through-July time frame has been positive for the S&P 500 only 33% of the time, averaging a loss of 0.15%."

Hopefully, for bulls at least, this year reverts back to the longer-term tendency, at least for the next three months.

Humble Student of the Markets

Instead of relying on historical analysis, he chooses to analyze both the technical and fundamental factors influencing the market this year.

(The piece by Hui, a portfolio manager with Qwest Investment Fund Management, was among the most popular articles on the Seeking Alpha site Monday.)

"One possibility for 2014 is that the markets would follow the midterm election year pattern of a 10%-20% summer correction into September or October," Hui writes. "Already, the market technical picture is flashing warning signs."

The trigger, he writes, might be a combination of risk exhaustion by fast money accounts and rising tail-risk from several geopolitical situations, including growing tensions between Russia and the Ukraine.

"Despite the positive fundamental backdrop, my inner investor is siding with the technicians," writes Hui, who adds that he is becoming increasingly cautious.

Hard to know what to make of this technical-fundamental mash-up. But at least Hui choses in his lengthy piece to factor in conditions that are impacting the market today, rather than merely considering Mays over the past century.

Economist

The thinking behind the piece is that no successor to the company's current leader, super-investor Warren Buffett, 83, will be able to maintain the kind of market-beating returns the 83-year-old Buffett has.

"Given his irreplaceability and the unrepeatability of his past dealmaking success, Mr. Buffett should remind shareholders at the annual meeting of the examples of James Hanson of Hanson Trust and Henry Singleton of Teledyne," writes the U.K.-based Economist. "These two conglomerate-builders of the 1960s to 1980s ended their stellar careers by breaking up the empires they had created, having recognized that an orderly sale would realize more value than a long, sad decline. Many of Berkshire Hathaway's businesses are big enough to survive on their own."

The Economist can't be faulted for raising the topic. And Buffett and his successors would be irresponsible if they didn't seriously weigh the pros and cons of splitting up the company. But Buffett has argued in the past that Berkshire's size is its strength rather than a weakness. Losses in insurance in a particular year, say, can be offset by profits elsewhere.

Many investors have bought into that thinking when they purchase shares of Berkshire. And if you think the bull market is particularly long in tooth, Berkshire's current form may hold some appeal.